Business change management using program management
The use of program management, and its focus on benefit management, results in organizational initiatives being more effective and efficient. It enables organizational programs to succeed, as opposed to running the initiatives as projects, which can lead to missed benefits, wasted resources, and failed efforts.
Two key international standards for program management, the Project Management Institute's The Standard for Program Management—Second Edition (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2008b), and the Office of Government Commerce's Managing Successful Programmes (2007), are being used within Siemens to implement organizational program management and to support organizational project management maturity improvement efforts. This paper will introduce the standards, compare them, and describe how they are being implemented and used within Siemens.
Project Management Institute (PMI) defines a program as “a group of related projects managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control not available from managing them individually.” (PMI 2008b, p. 5) PMI defines program management as the centralized coordinated management of a program to achieve the program's benefits and objectives. It involves aligning multiple projects to achieve the program goals and allows for optimized or integrated cost, schedule, and effort.
The United Kingdom's Office of Government and Commerce (OGC) defines a program as a temporary, flexible organization created to coordinate, direct, and oversee the implementation of a set of related projects and activities in order to deliver outcomes and benefits related to the organization's strategic objectives (OGC, 2007, p 4.
The key concept is that programs deliver benefits tied to the organization's strategic objectives. This idea, along with the concept that programs may be charted to deliver a mandated benefit, or group of benefits, with no clear path or method to achieve the benefits, has been very useful to implementing program management at Siemens and other companies.
The use of program management, and its focus on benefit management, results in organizational initiatives being more effective and efficient. It enables organizational programs to succeed, as opposed to running the initiatives as projects, which can lead to missed benefits, wasted resources, and failed efforts. Two key international standards for program management, PMI's The Standard for Program Management—Second Edition (PMI, 2008b) and OGC's Managing Successful Programmes (2007), are being used within Siemens to implement organizational program management and to support initiatives like organizational project management maturity improvement efforts. This paper will introduce the standards, compare them, and describe how they are being used within Siemens.
Is program management a fundamental new method, tooling, or fad? Is it a breakthrough? Is it revolutionary? Unfortunately, no—it is the application of fundamental principles in an organized fashion—where the normal reaction by individuals in training classes and implementations is “Why don't we already do this?” and “This is so simple—it's common sense.” It is not common by any means, it is not complex, but it is apparently difficult to do well and consistently. The research data shows that most organizations are not organizationally mature in program management.
Examples of Programs
A key discussion point in most early interactions with organizations is the clarification question of “What is a program?” The definitions from OGC and PMI are good, but generic. The best explanation that is used by Siemens is: if you can set up the scope, cost, schedule, WBS, etc., baselines from the start—even if they are complex—it is likely a project. If the first reaction to the mandate is “I'm not sure how to do that” or “I have an idea how to start, but not how to finish,” then it may be a program. Programs are not just large or complex projects, although large and/or complex projects can benefit from program management methodologies. One of the comparisons utilized within Siemens is shown in Exhibit 1. Programs can be internal initiatives such as improvement programs, business change initiatives, or product development programs—or externally focused (e.g., customer programs).
Some examples of programs are SAP Implementations; SG&A Reductions; Reorganizations; Implementing a Project Management Office; Organizationally Adopting Six Sigma; Improving Project Management Maturity, New Product Development, some Customer Solutions, etc. The best use of a program management approach is when a mandate tied to the organization's strategy is clear, but the path is not well defined.
For example, organizational project management improvement initiatives are business change programs. They are characterized by the creation and standardization of processes, delivering new capabilities, transformation of the business, and embedding change in many functional groups with the goal of achieving program benefits. Although Siemens has done this improvement process many times with many business units, each unit's specific path is unclear at the start of their program.
In early 2007, as a standard Siemens U.S. methodology, the United Kingdom Office of Government Commerce (OGC) Managing Successful Programmes (MSP) Standard* was selected as a basis for training, certification, and implementation. MSP was selected because:
MSP provided a best practice methodology that addressed the relationships between business as usual, business change, benefits management, and program governance.
Business change managers are formally defined and are responsible for defining capability requirements, transition planning, embedding change, and achieving the program benefits.
Maturity – MSP was launched by the UK OGC in 1999 and the standard is in its third revision (2007).
A training and certification network through Accredited Training Organizations that enabled practitioners.
The other worldwide standards at that point in time were not adequate
The Project Management Institute issued the second revision of their program management standard in December 2008. The second edition is a significant improvement over the first edition, published in 2006. Detailed changes are noted in an Appendix A to the standard, but in general, this is a completely new document, not merely a revision. The standard is now 324 pages, versus 109 pages, themes were deleted, knowledge areas added, and other major modifications were performed.
PMI's The Standard for Program Management—Second Edition (2008b) is linear in approach, with very generic good practice recommendations. It assumes that the entire scope of the program is known early on, which is not true in all programs, or it plans for an R&D–type phase that will answer the outstanding questions. The standard is very nonprescriptive in nature, allowing the implementing organization to create the best implementation method. This type of standard is helpful, but requires significant organizational expertise to help the implementation process. The PMI standard does have more detailed guidance in certain functional areas than MSP does (e.g., procurement management).
MSP has a more proscriptive implementation of program management, with key roles and responsibilities defined. The PMI standard is less proscriptive in nature, but as a result requires more infrastructure development and the creation of specific organizational methodologies, processes, etc. While MSP has a more specific method of delivering programmes than the PMI standard, it is still very flexible in nature, allowing organizations to tailor the basic methodology, while keeping the important principles in place. The MSP standard is useful for all types of programs and it has more direct emphasis on Benefit Management than the PMI standard, which is a key success factor for organizations delivering programs.
Three specifics that illustrate some of the differences:
In the PMI standard procurement is addressed in chapter 12, “Program Procurement Management,” a 23-page section that addresses good practices in procurement for a program. MSP has two paragraphs in section 16.10, plus one paragraph in section 4.8.
MSP has an entire governance theme devoted to Benefits Realization and Management (all of chapter 7), and additional references into this theme in all of the transformational flows, and most of the other themes. The PMI standard has a subsection in the governance knowledge area devoted to it—15.6, “Manage Program Benefits,” that is four and a half pages, and discussion in other areas, notably an additional two pages in chapter 2, “Program Life Cycle and Benefits Management.”
PMI states that benefits are to be managed; MSP has created an entire structure, including specific roles and responsibilities, around this concept.
There are some important similarities between the two standards. Both advocate strongly the implementation and use of program management offices, preferably at the organizational level. They both focus on benefit management, which is critical to success. There is also an emphasis on program and project level governance.
It should be noted that utilizing MSP for linear programs, even with a well-defined scope, does work as well as the PMI standard. Essentially MSP is applicable for all types of programs, and is especially useful for the less well-defined mandates. Following the MSP standard will align an organization or a program with the PMI standard, as the integral components are similar. As previously stated, the PMI standard is more of a generic document; the MSP provides one instance of implementation of the standard.
Based on an internal evaluation, and use of both standards, the MSP standard was selected for implementation by Siemens in the United States, as it is easier for individuals to understand and for organizations to implement. The new PMI standard is a good resource for helping to write certain individual processes, thanks to the detail and information provided in the various knowledge areas, especially where the MSP standard does not have sufficient coverage. Siemens is using both program management standards, in conjunction with PMI's Organizational Project Management Maturity Model Knowledge Foundation (OPM3®) (2008a). It is recommended that other organizations evaluate the standards for utilization in their businesses and select whatever combination will optimally support their businesses.
Program Management Methodology
Focus on Benefits
A common failure mode of some projects is the lack of focus on benefits—the reason for spending the money. This is even more critical in programs, where some of the components and projects may have no inherent benefit; they are supporting components that enable or help to deliver a benefit from the overall program. The overall flow in MSP is shown in Exhibit 2. The organization has some vision that ties to the strategic plan, the vision is tied to benefit(s) from a specific program, the program delivers the capabilities required to deliver the benefit through projects, the capabilities are used by the organization, and benefits are realized and embedded in the organization, thus delivering the vision of the program and supporting the organization's strategy.
Organizations have many diverse efforts, initiatives, projects, and programs in place at any one time. Typically not all of them have clearly defined benefits or ties to organizational strategy. Many times Siemens program management implementation teams during the initial stages identify many projects and initiatives that have no clear sponsor, owner, or organizational benefits tied to strategy. In one example, there were approximately 60 efforts in place, 20 were terminated after this review, 20 were put into a future evaluation category, and the remaining 20 were put into the program management methodology to run in a more standardized manner to deliver explicit benefits. Optimization of scarce resources by focusing them on benefit delivery and the organizational strategy is the outcome of these efforts.
Program Management Organizational Structure
A key element of program management adopted by Siemens from the MSP standard is the organizational structure. Prior to its adoption Siemens had the program manager in place, without the standardized support structure provided by MSP, as shown in Exhibit 3. The addition of the role of senior responsible owner (or program sponsor) provides a key link to the senior management of the organization. The SRO is accountable for delivering the benefits to the organization and must provide support to the program manger and business change manager(s). The Business Change Manager concept is also a key addition to the team. It is normal practice to hold the project or program manager responsible for delivery of the capability to the organization, and then the capability was supposed to be utilized by the organization as envisioned. This ad hoc method does not always result in capabilities being used effectively by the organizations. The Business Change Manager role is now responsible for taking the capability from the program manager and implementing it into their business and deriving the benefit(s) from its actual utilization. The Business Change Manager (s) should come from the functional groups being impacted by the program. For example, when a Siemens business unit improves its project management maturity, the changes do not affect only the project management group. The changes also affect many other groups: sales and marketing, procurement, quality, financial reporting, configuration management, proposal teams, engineering, etc. Business change managers or change agents from each impacted stakeholder group are critical to successful implementation of these types of organizational changes. MSP provides many examples of ways to implement this role or function in various organizational configurations.
Discipline and Methodology of Program Management
Organizations need maturity in the execution of their work, and program management is no exception. While individuals can be very successful in implementing business changes and running programs, organizations need mature methodologies in place to ensure consistent, reliable, scalable delivery of programs and the benefits that they deliver to the organization.
MSP provides a detailed methodology including quality gates, recommended documents, phases, etc., that drive successful program implementation. MSP is more proscriptive than PMI's standard, but is still flexible in application. MSP defines the roles and responsibilities of all who need to form part of the leadership of a program.
The MSP framework is based on three core concepts:
- MSP Principles. These are derived from positive and negative lessons learned from program experiences. They are the common factors that underpin the success of any transformational change
- MSP Governance Themes. These define an organization's approach to program management. They allow an organization to put in place the right leadership and delivery team, organization structures, and controls. These are similar to PMI's knowledge areas.
- MSP Transformational Flow. This provides a route through the life cycle of a program from its conception through to the delivery of the new capability, outcomes, and benefits. These are similar to PMI's phases.
There are numerous artifacts generated by going through a standardized MSP program including the program mandate, program brief, program preparation plan, vision statement, blueprint, business case, benefits profiles, stakeholder map, program plan, quality management plan, etc. These are used to help define and manage the program. These can be customized for each organization and can be tailored for specific programs.
Another useful concept from the MSP standard is tranches—these are a group of projects structured around distinct step changes in capability and benefit delivery. The concept facilitates those programs whose total plan cannot be determined at the beginning. The concept is to plan and obtain approval for the first tranche, during which the view for the next tranche will become clearer. Tranches can also be organized around things like fiscal years, locations, etc. A program may have only one tranche, or it could have dozens.
Referring back to Exhibit 2 - a tranche can be envisioned in simple terms to be one cycle around the circle, where the organization has some vision that ties to the strategic plan, the vision is tied to benefit(s) from a specific tranche of a program, the program delivers the capabilities required to deliver the benefit through projects, the capabilities are used by the organization, benefits are realized and embedded in the organization. If the full vision is not yet realized, another cycle around the circle is performed in a new tranche and this process is repeated until the vision is realized and all the benefits from the program are embedded in the organization.
Program Management Training and Certification
Siemens is actively training and certifying its employees in the United States on Program Management, using the MSP methodology. At this time, Siemens has just over 100 certified employees, and continues to hold MSP training/certification classes throughout the year. MSP is now a standard offering of Siemens Learning Campus, in cooperation with an external vendor, Core I.S. Ltd. Siemens long-term commitment to this plan has led to certifying two Siemens employees as instructors in MSP.
In October 2007, PMI released its program management certification called the Program Management Professional (PgMP)® Credential. OGC's MSP standard has had multilevel certification in place since 1999. There are currently three qualifications available for MSP: Foundation, Practitioner, and Advanced Practitioner.
The MSP certifications are forward looking—enabling personnel to participate in or lead a program. The PgMP® certification is historical facing: it certifies that someone has led programs successfully in the past and understands a certain body of knowledge. Siemens is recommending that its personnel look to the MSP certifications as a good front-end process, with the PMI certification as a capstone.
How Siemens is Implementing Program Management and the Path Forward
One of the ongoing missions within Siemens is to improve organizational project management maturity to support the project business. Overall, Siemens is progressing to higher levels of sustained maturity. Due to the importance of project management maturity to Siemens, the United States region of Siemens decided to accelerate the improvement effort. Based on a review of assessment results and evaluation of global consulting experiences, the following key success factors were determined to be fundamental characteristics for implementing and sustaining organizational project management maturity:
Organizational project management office
Process management infrastructure
Program management best practices
Siemens began implementing program management in the United States under the Successfully Defined Program, sponsored by Siemens Corporate in the United States beginning in 2007. This program supported project management maturity under the PM@Siemens initiative and addressed all four success areas noted above. This program, executed by Siemens Corporate Research, concluded in 2008. Continuing efforts are targeted at the business unit level and are not presently sponsored at the corporate level. Siemens Corporate Research is continuing to develop Siemens program management capability and improve the maturity level within specific business units.
Training and Certification
As noted previously, Siemens is actively training and certifying employees in the MSP methodology. This extends the knowledge of standardized program management into the organization, creating awareness. It also opens opportunities for the various business units to run programs more successfully and engage in sponsored improvement programs. Individuals have the capability to improve their own results; one of the participants stated, “I now know why my project is failing—it's a program—and I know how to fix it.” There is also an effort to incorporate program management into our leadership development and training program.
Program Management Infrastructure Development and Individual Program Support
Siemens Corporate Research (SCR) provides support to individual business units to develop and implement a program management methodology. The development of policies, procedures, tools, methodologies, organizational structure, etc., is ongoing with selected business units.
SCR also provides services to our business units to successfully plan and execute individual programs. One of the tools is called a Program Acceleration through Coaching and Teamwork (PACT), which helps plan and kick off a program.
SCR is in the process of finalizing program management maturity assessments for Siemens businesses. We have an internal model created and will be evaluating the use of PMI's OPM3 Product Suite® tool for suitability. Siemens is also working on several organizational-level internal projects to develop infrastructure (tools, templates, procedures, processes, etc.) to facilitate the use of program management by our business units.
Recommendations and Conclusions
The use of a standardized program management methodology is critical to successful internal and external programs. Maturity in project, program, and portfolio management is a significant contributor to the success of project- and service-based businesses. A standardized program management methodology is currently being utilized successfully in parts of Siemens, and its adoption is continuing and expanding. The benefits achieved so far have been impressive, spawning a number of internal case studies that are under development.
It is recommended that organizations adopt a combination of PMI's The Standard for Program Management— Second Edition (2008b) and OGC's MSP Standard (2007) for all programs, including internal business change initiatives, customer facing programs, R&D programs, quality initiatives, etc. It is critical to successfully implementing programs, and also enables portfolio management.
Siemens is working to tie program management maturity into our entire portfolio of organizational initiatives and methodologies, including portfolio management, project management, project management offices, Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma, CMMI, and other key initiatives.
It should be clearly stated that this paper is only an introduction to program management and the standards. The foundation level course for OGC's MSP Standard is 3 days, and Siemens uses a combination foundation/practitioner course that is four and a half days of training and testing to introduce our employees to the method. The other critical component is utilizing expert subject matter expert support—both in training and implementation of program management.
Cooke-Davies, T., & Teague, T. (2007). Is there anything new under the sun? The changing and unchanging faces of project management. PMI Global Congress 2007—North America. Proceedings, TRN07.PDF.
Hobbs, B. (2007). The Multi-project PMO: A global analysis of the current state of practice. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Mittelstaedt, A., & Lebsanft, K. (2008). Use and support of the PMI OPM3® standard in conjunction with Siemens internal maturity in project management (MPM) assessment protocol and project management best practice methodology, PM@Siemens.PMI Global Congress 2008–EMEA Proceedings. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Office of Government Commerce. (2007). Managing successful programmes: Delivering business change in multi-project environments book (8th impression). Norwich, UK:The Stationery Office.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2007). Insights and trends: Current programme and project management practices, The second global survey on the current state of project management maturity in organisations across the world.
Project Management Institute. (2003). Organizational project management maturity model. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute. (2008a). Organizational project management maturity model knowledge foundation (OPM3®)—Second Edition. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute. (2008b) The standard for program management—Second Edition. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Strausser, G., Sopko, J. (2007a). PM@Siemens USA White Paper, Project management maturity: Siemens Corporation, New York, NY.
Strausser, G., Sopko, J. (2007b). Guide to project management maturity: Siemens Corporation, New York, NY.
Strausser, G., & Sopko, J. (2008). Improving organizational project management maturity: a Siemens case study. PMI Global Congress 2008--North America Proceedings, ADV18NA08.PDF. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Strausser, G., & Sopko, J. (2009). Effective organizational change management in Siemens using managing successful programmes methodology: PMOs and other key success factors., International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 9(1), 239–248.
Strausser, G., Sopko, J., & Barney, S. (2009, May). Improving organizational project management
maturity: A Siemens case study. Series: ASQ World Conference on Quality and Improvement, Minneapolis, MN, 63,1–9, Retrieved from http://www.asq.org/qic/display-item/index.html?item=30302.
*Managing Successful Programmes and MSP™ are registered trademarks of the UK Office of Government Commerce.
© 2009, Glenn Strausser
Originally published as a part of 2009 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Orlando, Florida